Talk:Christopher Coutu

Maintenance issue
"He is one of sixty-two state elected officials in America who serve in the Armed Forces." This appears twice in this article. How are we going to keep that statistic up to date, and ensure that the two counts match? I have no answer, except to suggest that it probably should not appear in the article at all. Chris the speller (talk) 21:41, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

City council term
A sentence from the "Norwich city alderman" section states that "Coutu earned a seat as an alderman on the Norwich City Council in 2007." However, the next sentence goes on to say that "During his tenure on the city council, he served on several committees, including the Board of Zoning Appeals, Mohegan Park Advisory, Public Works and Rehabilitation Review in 2001" (emphasis added). If he was elected in 2007, he wasn't there in 2001. As I do not know what 2001 should be changed to, or if it is somehow correct but it is the sentence that needs to be rewritten for clarity, I tagged the sentence with Citation needed. --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 07:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View
This article relies on statements of puffery and assigns moral views to the subject rather than making neutral fact statements from which the reader could draw a similar conclusion. Additionally, the article draws too much from the subject's own statements and not enough from statements about the subject. Thus, the subject's role in several legislative events is overstated.

The article describes the intent of legislation through a conservative lens and uses subtle cues which criticize actions of opposing parties or forces as opposed to describing them as they occurred. Subtle editorializing occurs throughout. 76.119.43.139 (talk) 14:13, 7 May 2011 (UTC)Mark


 * Agreed. I'm tagging this. One particularly problematic section is the one on his political positions, with terms like "passionate about defending the ... Constitution" and something about supporting the rights of "law-abiding citizens"? I mean, come on. I think we can be a bit more descriptive. These vague statements and lionization of Coutu doesn't serve the interests of our readers. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:56, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Dubious selection of facts and little or no criticism about this candidate occurs in this article. Isn't it a little odd that a state legislator has such an exhaustive Wikipedia page? I suspect this was written by one of his staffers and sources were found to support their assertions afterward. This needs more point-counterpoint and less trumpet-blowing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.127.250.45 (talk) 18:20, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Dubious
Call me crazy, but I'm pretty sure a state legislator isn't empowered to single-handedly strike down state laws. Did the original author (whom I take to be either Representative Coutu himself or a member of his staff) mean Coutu criticized the law? Did a court find it unconstitutional? Was Coutu a named plaintiff in a lawsuit challenging the law's constitutionality? All of the above? The wording needs to be much clearer. -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:38, 2 August 2011 (UTC)